From 1936 until the 1980s, the expanding Council estate in North Acre provided affordable housing. The sale of council houses in the 1980s gave some village families a valuable opportunity to become home owners, but reduced the stock of housing for rent. Ironically these houses have increased in value so much that they could not now be afforded by those who bought them originally. The small cottages which previously provided homes for agricultural workers have been sold and improved, making them too expensive for those on average wages to buy. The small terraced houses have similarly been enlarged. In the years from 1997 to 2007 the cost of houses nationally has trebled, but wages have not. It is now more difficult than it has ever been for young villagers to set up their own homes here. Housing Associations normally charge rents similar to those for Council houses.

SEEDA, in its Economic Strategy for the South East of England states “Over recent decades the age profile of rural communities has changed as younger people have moved away and older people have moved in, If communities in rural areas are to be sustainable they need to be nurtured as places where a wide range of people can choose to live and work.”

Commenting on the fact that young people were finding it impossible to afford homes in Longparish, one contributor to the Parish Plan consultation said “We need affordable housing otherwise we’ll just become a village of old people like some Cotswold villages”

The population fall shown above is a reflection of the changing face of employment in the countryside. In the mid 18th century the majority of the population of Longparish were employed in the surrounding farms. This is no longer the case with very few of the population of Longparish employed within the parish boundaries.

The level of people living in the village is only important if the village is in danger of losing valuable facilities due to lack of population. There is no evidence that this is the case - in fact the opposite is seems to be true where in general the village seems to be thriving compared with any time in the last twenty years with the school and pubs thriving an active social life throughout the village. Comments such as that from SEEDA are generalised comments which may or may not apply to Longparish either now or in the future.

One specific comment in favour of affordable housing is not a legitimate argument for promoting the project. It would be equally possible to find people prepared to offer opinions against the idea. Even the comment used does not reflect the number of young families that have moved into the village over the last two years

Restrictive planning policies have led to high house prices which have greatly benefited house owners but mean that some people with strong village connections cannot afford to enter the market. Market forces affect us all, but those living in towns or cities generally have more affordable housing options available locally and, with better transport infrastructure than most rural areas, are less likely to be forced away from their families by these market forces than village people.

A living village needs a mixed community – long term and new residents, young and old, affluent and poorer. In other places market forces have resulted in social imbalance which is divisive and detrimental to village life, especially when village amenities are not used and valued.

The facts show that at present Longparish enjoys the same percentage level of affordable housing as other Hampshire villages and as Hampshire overall. They are no special circumstances that justify increasing this percentage for Longparish - no special deprivations etc. It is argued that the balance of the present affordable housing stock is not suitable for present needs/preference. The issue here is that timescales for developments are such

Local and central government policy tends to encourage larger developments such as that proposed at Picket20. Here there can be a large mixed developments together with all the facilities needed such as leisure, community and health.

Some of the people who need homes currently live in the village, for example people living with parents who wish to set up their first home. Others who need housing have family or employers in Longparish, who wish or need to have them in the village.

Many current villagers have been able to meet their own needs by buying, extending and improving their properties. The open housing market provides for those who are able to purchase or rent homes at commercial rates, and planning polices permit extension and improvement. Unfortunately, this entirely understandable process has resulted in smaller homes in the village becoming larger (for example in Wood Walk and Gladstone Terrace) with the result that the bottom rung has dropped off the housing ladder.

The needs of all villagers will be considered alongside the needs of those looking for affordable homes by the planning authorities as part of the approval process for any affordable housing development - in the same way as neighbours’ needs are taken into account for other planning applications.

If we are to consider the preferences or desires of those who would like to make use of Affordable Housing in Longparish then we should gave equal consideration to the preferences and desires of existing villagers. There should be no automatic assumption that the “needs” of those seeking affordable housing are of greater merit than the “needs” of those who already live here.

There is affordable housing being built close by at Picket 20 - less than 6 miles away. The village itself is over 3 miles long. What is the problem with those travelling from Picket 20 if there is family or work needs within the village. - why does the housing have to be within the Longparish boundaries

As part of the decision making process it is vital that the needs, desire and preferences of those who are already living in the village are recognised and taken into full account.

Local people in housing need who are currently living in Longparish or who have a local connection and want to return, have strong reasons for living in Longparish. Their needs for village accommodation in Longparish will not be met by the large urban housing developments that are being built elsewhere.

For the vast majority of people in this country, life is a series of compromises. If some one has a requirement to be close to parents or children in Longparish then Picket 20 is sufficiently close to provide easy access. It will might not be as pleasant an area to live in as Longparish but should we feel obliged to provide a 100% solution to these desires or a solution to the problem of living in close proximity to their family

Very important to those in need. An example is the number of properties that have been improved to include accommodation for elderly parents and the number of homes bought for their dependents by people living in the village. A community is defined by the connections that draw us together, and these needs are not confined to those who can afford to pay the market price. Low income families where both parents need to work but cannot afford paid child care need the support of relatives more than most.

Some residents were born here and grew up here. It is becoming increasingly difficult for many people to afford to buy homes in Longparish as house prices have greatly outstripped earnings over the last few years. Helping generations of families stay in close proximity to each other is recognised as an important part of a thriving village life. The Rural Housing Commission states “the countryside is not solely about the landscape, but the communities within it. This means the needs of people, particularly a need as basic as housing, should be taken into account alongside those of the environment and the economy when taking decisions affecting future generations. Without more affordable housing, those on lower incomes will increasingly be excluded from living in many parts of the countryside, offering the next generation little choice but to move away to find homes. Families separated by distance will be less able to support each other by providing childcare or doing shopping for elderly relatives and local services will become increasingly difficult to maintain without a critical mass to use them. Having worked hard to make urban areas more attractive and sustainable, we will look back and find we have created rural areas which are less sustainable and increasingly socially polarised.” Source: Report of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission, May 2006.

The villagers of Longparish should form their own view about the social issues raised in this question. The views of external bodies such as the Rural Housing Commission are not relevant and should not be used as an argument either for or against

Homes in any new affordable housing development would not be allocated in the same way as North Acre but be reserved for people with a strong Longparish connection. This can be assured through binding legal covenants, such as the section 106 agreement used at West Wellow.

There is still no guarantee that these new homes will go to people with Longparish connections particularly well into the future. Not one of the potential organisations involved in allocating the housing will go into writing to confirm that any one who would take up one of the new affordable houses can be guaranteed a strong local connection.

Instead of focusing on new build the pressure should come onto TV Homes to change their allocation process. In is not acceptable that they as a public body can pursue a policy that disadvantages the local community - i.e. Longparish

Test Valley Borough Council insists that the commercial element is kept to the minimum needed to release the land and to provide substantial community gain. A possible advantage of some small market houses would be to enable existing residents who would like to move to smaller houses within the village to do so

This is the whole point of the exceptions policies, ESN 05 and ESN 06, which make building social housing possible. Under current planning policy for rural areas only infill development and development in North Acre is allowed in Longparish, and virtually all possible sites have been built on. There are currently no sites that a landowner has agreed to put forward for consideration and that TVBC consider to have planning potential, except green field sites. See question below on commercial development.

The policy is there to allow Greenfield development AS LONG AS this is the wish of the community. The policy itself is neutral and should not be used as an argument either for or against development. Land should not be released unless it is the wish of the village that it should be

Test Valley Borough Council has to balance the differing views of local people with their statutory responsibilities when it comes to making planning decisions. Housing need has already been demonstrated according to accepted guidelines and it is unlikely they would require further research to decide upon this point. But further consultation may help them assess the level of community support for any proposed development and influence their response

It is up to the village to decide in the first instance whether, as a community, it wishes to go ahead with seeking to develop affordable housing. Only then will this question have any relevance

Yes. The project being proposed maximises the number of affordable homes, and limits commercial (or “open market”) homes to only what is necessary to support the development. The Housing Group’s proposal is for 12 affordable homes and somewhere between three and six commercial homes.

Some people support the idea of making the village a little bigger by increasing the number of commercial homes as an increase in the population (or, more likely, the prevention of further population decline) would help us retain our facilities. But the policy (ESN06) only permits the minimum number of commercial homes to enable a project to be viable.

This comment is only applicable if the village agrees that the scheme should go ahead

The Parish Council and Housing Associations have tried in vain to find a site since 1990. The village will benefit not only from the affordable housing but also from the community gain TVBC insists on which could include, for instance, a new village green, space for a community building, improvements to the path from North Acre to the school and improved parking.

Until detailed commercial negotiations have been carried out on a particular site and housing configuration, talk of additional village benefits are premature. The economics of the deal could be such that there is very little over from the deal to fund additional village facilities. The least risk assessment of these schemes is to assume no additional funding for village facilities.

We would ensure the extra restriction (which does not apply to the existing affordable homes in North Acre) that the needs of households with a strong Longparish connection take absolute precedence. See the West Wellow Section 106 agreement for an example of how this can be done.

We still have the situation where if the housing association is faced with no one with a connection to Longparish they will allocate the dwelling to someone who is a stranger to the village.

The Housing Group suggests offering a proportion of the affordable homes on a shared ownership basis, depending on demand and financial considerations. These properties can never be 100% bought, and so remain as affordable housing.

This comment is only applicable if the village agrees that the scheme should go ahead.

This is an important feature of modern planning policy designed to prevent concentrations of particular types of homes. A mixed development that brings both affordable and open market housing together should enhance the overall look and impact of any development and how it fits into the village. North Acre is now a mixture of social and private housing which works well.

This comment is only applicable if the village agrees that the scheme should go ahead

There cannot be absolute and perpetual guarantees, but any development would be subject to a special legal agreement (known as a Section 106 agreement) to ensure that the homes go only to people withy a strong Longparish connection. And there might also be restrictive covenants to reinforce the S106 agreement. Restricting the number of affordable homes to 12 (that is about half the level of need indicated by survey and the housing register) would also ensure that the affordable housing goes to local people only.

It is possible to put safeguards in place but ultimately it will still be the decision of TVBC or their agents as to who will live in any potential development. They can give assurances about giving priority to people with local connections but will those assurances apply when there has been a change of personnel at TVBC, new local and central government rules and priorities have changed some time in the future

There cannot be an absolute guarantee but careful choice of the mix of homes will ensure that they are suitable for the needs of people with strong Longparish connections. A local connection to Longparish would always take precedence over another’s needs, provided that the housing unit is suitable. But people would not be offered accommodation that was not suited to their needs. For example, if a three-bedroom home became available it would not be offered to a couple without children. When a vacancy did occur, it would always be offered first to those with a local connection. In the unlikely event that there were no one with a Longparish connection who is in need of that size and shape of accommodation, then it would be offered to someone outside the village, in preference to it being left empty. Typically TVBC Housing Department would allocate to someone in need from another village rather than a town. We could explore whether any such lets could be short term until a Longparish household comes up that suits the property.

Yes, if that is what is needed. Given our understanding of the current properties available in North Acre, managed by Testway Housing, the needs of older Longparish villagers or those with a local connection for ground floor accommodation are currently being met. As result, any affordable housing development would be likely to be aimed at younger people and families.

ESN06 is a minor modification of the existing policy and there is no reason to expect that using it (whether or not we are the first) will result in significantly different issues from those which arise with ESN05 which has been in place for many years. Longparish is not the only village to be considering a development under this policy and similar policies have been implemented in other districts, such as North Curry in Somerset and South Hams in Devon.

It is for the village to make that decision in a democratic manner. However, allowing development of green field sites not a “minor modification” in terms of the impact it could have on planning decisions

None of these developments meet the needs of Longparish villagers or those with a connection to Longparish who want to live in this village. Nor would they help us to preserve a balanced community.

If some one has a requirement to be close to parents or children in Longparish, or needs to live close to the village for any other reason, then Picket 20 is sufficiently close to provide easy access. We already have the means of preserving a balanced community via the existing lower cost housing already in the village

It is clearly not possible to predict ongoing village need with complete certainty. However there is evidence through 3 Housing Needs Surveys conducted in different time periods that there is a consistency of demand for affordable homes at approximately double the level of the proposed development. The reduced number of homes is being proposed partly to increase the certainty that the homes will go only to those with a village connection into the future.

A smaller development that meets some of the local need is surely preferable to no development that meets none of the need. If in 20 years time there is evidence of similar unsatisfied need for affordable housing within the village then, as now, the village would need to decide whether it would benefit from a new development. Current policy permits us to have a small development to address the present needs of the village, under strict conditions.

Today’s decisions should be taken today. It will be for those living in the village in 20 year’s time to take decisions relating to issues current to them at that time

During the earlier consultation phases the feedback from the village demonstrated concern as to the size of any proposed development. After advice from TVBC planners and housing experts, the Housing Group proposal is to limit the number of new affordable homes to 12 (meeting only half the identified need) and to limit the number of market houses to the minimum number (and no more than six) required to ensure the viability of the scheme.

The population of Longparish in 1991 was 730 and in 2001 703, and TVBC predicts a small sustained reduction. The rise in population created by up to 18 small houses in a village of over 300 homes would be unlikely to cause problems. Longparish is one of the smallest villages to have a school, playgroup, church, community and village halls, shop, Post Office, two pubs, and some public transport and it is important to keep them. A reversal of the decline in our population should help the viability of our facilities but the effect will be modest, and the major benefit to the village will be the affordable housing and the community gain attached to ESN 06.

Longparish has around 5,000 acres of land within its boundaries. There is always a balance to be struck between the need for housing and preserving the countryside.

This question reminds us that we have duties and responsibilities to more than just those who may or may not wish to live in Longparish but who can't afford to do so. We also have duties and responsibilities to our fellow villagers and to the village itself. We are its guardians and should look after it with care. We must not allow its character to be altered lightly or without good reason.

The figure of 5000 acres is spurious. The green field areas that affect the village along the ribbon development along the B3048 is less than a few hundred acres. Both of the proposed schemes would use a significant portion of the main Greenfield acreage.

No decision has been made but it is likely that the homes will be small – up to three bedrooms and modern planning policies mean that gardens will be small as well. It will depend on the mix of housing units, some of which are likely to be houses, some flats, etc.

Well designed visually attractive developments can be built within these density requirements, for example there are pictures of a development at Shillingstone in Dorset on the village website. It will be important that great care is taken in design to ensure that any adverse impact on neighbours is minimised. Consultation will be crucial

Even with best design, new build can still have a detrimental visual effect on existing home owners. However, the impact is much more than visual. Issues such as noise, traffic activity and the upkeep and maintenance of buildings and gardens are just as important and can not be “designed” away

In addition, improved parking is one of the suggested improvements in village amenities which could form part of a project.

This comment is only applicable if the village agrees that the scheme should go ahead

By careful design of access to existing roads and by helping reduce traffic by including improvement of the spinal footpath as part of the project so as to reduce the number of local journeys made by car. This is something that will be considered by the planning and highway authorities in detail. The effects of 15 -18 homes on traffic depend a great deal on where the access roads are sited, and what happens to traffic at particular times of the day but this number is small in relation to the size of the village. We are fortunate not to be on a main road.

It is clearly not going to be possible to mitigate traffic effects at the actual site of the development

The development could increase demand for existing bus services and strengthen the possibility of them remaining available for all villagers.

Given that the development would be aimed at young families it is more likely that it would increase the number of cars within the village and have no effect whatsoever on the use of public transport

We can stipulate this as one of the community gains that the new development would have to pay for. That would encourage more people to go to school on foot and provide a safe alternative to the main B3048 for those who already go on foot.

We cannot assume that there will be sufficient money in any deal for this or any other local amenity.

Planning policy is quite robust in protecting existing mature trees, so it is unlikely that these would be felled. If a village green is included in any project, for instance, then some of the hedge along the B3048 on the Zurich site might be removed to make the village green a feature of the village.

So far as possible, yes though some ideas may be impractical on grounds of cost. We can explore whether any new development should comply with a “carbon neutral” standard, even if this will not be required under the law for a few years. This and other environmentally favourable steps would be part of the discussions with potential developers, and villagers will be able to comment when the designs are proposed.

Careful and sympathetic design can only minimise these issues. It cannot abolish them completely

It would be wrong to assume that any specific community gain will be forthcoming. There can be no guarantees until commercial negotiations have been completed

It will be a very small change to Longparish in total and, if sensitively designed, the result could actually enhance the village. For instance we could have a village green to act as a heart for, and be owned by, our community.

The project, if it goes ahead, will inevitably change the village and will, by definition, destroy part of the current joy of the village (that is its open spaces, specified both in the Village Design Statement and the Village Plan as elements of the village that are integral to its character and which should be protected)

For those who live adjacent to the two sites under discussion, their views could obviously be affected. Sensitive development could ensure that potential sites were made more attractive with increased village amenities.

Village views are enjoyed not only by those living near them. Development will have a negative impact for all residents of the village who enjoy the views and outlooks that exist throughout the village

This is a matter of personal opinion. Inevitably a development will have some impact on the landscape but that can and should be mitigated by careful design

Yes. Given the 5,000 acres of land within the parish and the limited amount of residential housing that currently exists, the overall impact of changing up to two acres needs to be kept in perspective. And adding a village green would improve that open feel.

It is inevitably that green field development will have a negative impact on the “green open feel” of the village

That is something to be discussed at the design stage. The important thing is to ensure that the design is as good as possible and enhances the village. Current thinking among planners is that a mix is beneficial.

The village shop needs support and the more village residents use it the more likely it is to survive. If every household spent just £10 a week in the shop, its future would be pretty well assured. The more people who use the shop the better and those who live in the village are most likely to use it. It follows that an increase in numbers could help, but obviously would not save the shop on its own. It is true that many prefer do a weekly shop at a supermarket, but many also like to be able to buy at the village shop. For those without a car or who are housebound, the village shop is a lifeline. The shop is willing to stock what people want to buy and it is worth asking for things that you will buy regularly.

The shop provides other services which would be very much missed if it closed - the post office, newspaper deliveries, the banking facilities, dry cleaning, lottery tickets, and an informal place to exchange information. The post office has helped to subsidise the shop but national policies (for example on the payment of pensions and collection of TV licenses) and the supermarkets have reduced its profitability, and it is important that the shop itself makes money. Only an increase in customers and what they spend can make it viable. Additional housing could increase that support, albeit in a modest way, and help ensure the viability of the shop - but it is unlikely to make enough difference on its own.

Extra housing in the village would have a beneficial effect on the village shop

The biggest benefit is, of course, providing homes for people with a strong village connection who need them.

An important element which could be included is a village green which would be owned by the parish council or a charitable trust thus ensuring that it was protected from development for ever. This would provide a social focus for the village and remove the uncertainty which inevitably exists about how the land concerned might be used if planning policies are relaxed in future. Other benefits which could be provided as part of a scheme would be

• improving the spinal path so it could be used for access to the school from North Acre all year round instead of people having to use cars or the B3048 on foot with small children
• providing a parking area
• providing space for a community building which could serve as a meeting room and provide replacement premises for a shop should that ever become necessary

All these possibilities are no more than that – possibilities. There can be no guarantee of “community gain” until commercial negotiations have been completed. Even if they are forthcoming, the decision still has to be made as to whether the gains outweigh the negative impact of the development.

The only safe way to proceed at this stage is to assume that community gain would be either limited or non existent

It is easy to be in favour of something if to be so does not disadvantage you in any way. It is accepted by all that this development could cause values of nearby houses to fall. These are houses belonging to our friends and neighbours, some of whom may have made significant financial sacrifices to live in this beautiful village.

For financial loss to be imposed on them by decisions taken by others who will not be disadvantaged is unfair, and should at least be accepted as such. To suggest to our fellow villagers who will take the brunt of the financial loss that they should accept it willingly in the light of recent house price rises shows considerable insensitivity. Also, the argument that it is not "real" money is incorrect. Anyone needing to sell their house to re-locate would find that the loss was very "real" indeed.

If it is truly the view that such financial loss is acceptable to the cause, then surely it would be fairer to spread the loss among the village as a whole rather than leaving it for a few to bear the full amount.

Planning regulations, whether specific or not, have nothing to do with the decision that we as a village could make about whether or not we should spread the financial load.

The proposed amenities should enhance the value of living in Longparish for all villagers. See above for specific recommendations currently under discussion, which were suggested during the Parish Plan consultations

There is no guarantee there will any additional amenities.

Unless the national framework changes there is no possibility of TVBC developing exceptions